A. The Defendants’ claim for prohibition of business due to a tort 1) The Defendant’s restaurant with the trade name of “F” operated by the Plaintiff in Masan-si (hereinafter “F”).

334 and 335 (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) are accessible to the Plaintiff as if the franchise agreement was entered into on the part of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff enter into the instant restaurant.

(2) The Plaintiff’s act of business in the instant restaurant constitutes a tort where the Defendants’ act of business in the instant restaurant was committed by either destroying negotiations on the part of the Plaintiff for franchise agreement and using internal facilities, method of cooking, business know-how, etc., the Plaintiff’s act of business in the instant restaurant constitutes a tort, and the Plaintiff’s act of business in the instant restaurant is prohibited.

B. The method and trade know-how, etc. used by the Plaintiff for a business prohibition claim under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act by F constitute “trade secret” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”). As such, the Defendants approaching the Plaintiff as if they concluded a franchise agreement and acquired the above trade secret and used it in the operation of the restaurant of this case constitutes “act of infringing trade secret” under Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the same Act, and thus, the Defendants seek a prohibition against the business conduct of the restaurant of this case pursuant to Article 10(1) of the same Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a) as seen earlier, the indication of the claim;

(b) Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, based on the basis of recognition (a judgment made by the deeming party);

3. The defendant C.